After having read it, it doesn’t appear that you’re avoiding or evading taxes at all. — NOS4A2

I don't pay the government any net tax. How is that not avoiding tax?

It’s tax relief. The tax relief you get depends on the rate of tax you pay. You’re using money that is already taxed. If you do not earn enough money to pay tax, you probably won’t get tax relief on your donation.

You’re using money that is already taxed. — NOS4A2

No, that's not how tax relief works. The money that I would have paid in income tax is paid instead to the charity. The government doesn't get it, the charity does. My charity. The one I chose of my own free will. I've literally avoided giving the tax to the government by giving it to a charity of my choice.

If you do not earn enough money to pay tax, you probably won’t get tax relief on your donation. — NOS4A2

That's right, but if I didn't earn enough I wouldn't pay any taxes at all.

Still not paying taxes to the government.

Also, you're ignoring the many ways in which I extract tax money from the government for my own purposes. I get thousands in grants. Way more than I ever pay (my scheme isn't perfect so sometimes I pay a small amount of tax).

The net flow of tax money is from the government to me (my schemes), not the other way round.

In fact, I hadn't even thought. The farm gets basic payment scheme (government money) which isn't even charitable. So the net flow is even greater than I'd first thought. Tens of thousands.

They haven't left America then. They're still subject to any laws America might implement. For example the modern slavery legislation in my country includes overseas labour. — Isaac

Ok?

Ok? — frank

Good. Glad we understand each other. Perhaps give things a little more thought before posting next time? It might make for a better exchange.

The net flow of tax money is from the government to me (my schemes), not the other way round. — Isaac

Knowing where the state's money comes from, is that a good thing, though?

I get the idea. I can hardly blame someone for seeking to profit from a system that is imposed on them.

However, this is not a cost we're imposing on the state, but on the people who finance the state - ordinary people caught in the same trap as you.

Well, possibly... But since everyone is in the same boat as me, then it's everyone's free choice to give that money to the government (as opposed to a charity doing what they think is best). So the money I'm taking is money given freely to those projects, since it's a free choice to pay the tax to the government and not to some other charitable organisation.

People can payroll donate too (if they're employed), so it's not limited to the self-employed. If one doesn't like what the government are doing with one's excess income, one can give it to a charity one prefers (or set one up oneself).

So the only people whose money I seem to be taking for my schemes are people who didn't have a scheme of their own they'd prefer to give it to, or people who had more money that they needed anyway.

I can think of two main counter-arguments;

1. The low tax bracket isn't high enough for a comfortable life.
If this is the case then there's a problem in that people cannot avoid tax by charitable donation since they need the 80% remaining to pay for their own well-being. This would, however, be a case for raising the tax thresholds, not for abandoning tax altogether (a much more achievable goal).
2. Tax on savings is a problem (I already have savings and already paid tax on them before I started these schemes, before I was even aware I could do it). I don't use my savings, but I'm aware that they're a safety net which others starting this scheme from scratch would lack. Walking the tightrope without a safety net is quite a different prospect to doing so with one, even if one never falls! But again, this is a much more remediable problem to focus on than taxes as a whole.

Basically, some people have excess wages - more than they need to live off, and other people in the community have needs (bad luck, disability, etc), and the community has collective projects (its air, water, infrastructure, education/innovation, etc) from which people benefit collectively (ie they can't directly pay for what they use).

The question (for me) is how to manage this situation with the maximum autonomy, as the autonomy of the individual is a primary right in my view.

I don't think taxes are a major problem here because it seems that my excess wages can be easily distributed to charities dealing with those other matters instead of the government, and I can exercise my complete autonomy in deciding where they go. I might have to fiddle a few things, jump through a few hoops (like Charity commission registration, funding applications, etc), but by-and-large I can take care of my obligations to the rest of my community in whatever way I see fit using my excess income.

Hence my contention that there's bigger fish to fry in regards to offences against the autonomy of the individual. Tax doesn't seem to be a problem, I can pay whomever I want to carry out my social ethical obligations, it needn't be the government...

...but a school leaver looking to work as a farm labourer, for example, has their working conditions and pay entirely determined by a monopoly of agricultural commodities sellers and investors who fix the price of goods, and so fix the price the farmer can get, and so fix the limit to the labourer's wage. He's had his freedom reduced to a far greater extent - he might not even be able to choose where to live (follow the work), he certainly couldn't choose what to do with his time (14hr days are not uncommon in agricultural labour), he can't choose how to spend his money (monopolies of energy suppliers, banking, manufacturers etc all constrain his choices), he can't choose how to educate his children, ...he can't choose anything I consider important. And it's not the government restricting any of those choices. It's not tax (he probably doesn't pay any). It's capitalists. It's the owning classes setting the conditions which restrict his choices.

A theme running through certain comments, often implicitly:
The state is an alien Kafkaesque entity, remote and distanced from oneself.
(Almost like an implicit definition.)
What's up with that?

The state is an alien Kafkaesque entity, remote and distanced from oneself.
(Almost like an implicit definition.)
What's up with that? — jorndoe

Well... it's that the state is an alien Kafkaesque entity, remote and distanced from oneself.

So people are saying that.

Is there something you don't understand about people saying things which seem to them to be the case?

I'm not sure I can really explain it to you any more simply. Let's say I look out of my window and there seems to be a deer in the garden. I might say "there's a deer in the garden". Does that help? People say things that seem to them to be the case.

... It's like I'm having to explain how language works...

, I'm not going to quote, it'd seem like fingerpointing. If you feel fingerpointed, then nope.

Who do you think the establishment is? It's just guys like me. Their desks are bigger, but their jobs aren't. They don't conspire, they buy boats. — Quentin · Cube (1997)

Nice start of an explanation, though. Please go on.

I'm not going to quote, it'd seem like fingerpointing. — jorndoe

That's literally the point of the quote function.

They don't conspire, they buy boats — Quentin · Cube (1997)

Ahh! I see now. You "disagree". That's when you think one thing is the case but other people think something else is.

Do I have to explain how disagreement works now too. I'll try and find a diagram

, ahh no, the quote was your average rambling point from a movie. :D Vaguely related, might let you know if you need to pay special attention in the future.

Nice start of an explanation, though. Please go on. — just above

Please do. Looking forward to checking later.

Diagrams too. The forum supports drag-and-drop, should be easy for you to attach.

Is communism realistic/feasible? — jorndoe

Far too often philosophers as well as ordinary men fail to ask the right question. Of course it is. So is torturing people in castle dungeons and hanging them upside down. I could do that now. The real question is, should it be done? Is the chase worth the prize? Are the known risks and guaranteed difficulties worth the indeterminate reward or is it but like so many of man's endeavors, merely mirage? These are the questions men fail to ask themselves before far, far too late.

I have noticed that both right-wing and left-wing radicals get along very well when it comes to restricting citizens' freedoms and to support dictators.
— Jacques

Really? Like whom? — Isaac

Like indirectly supporting Putin. For example, right-wing and left-wing extremists are united in calling for an end to supporting the Ukrainians' struggle for freedom with weapons.

Like indirectly supporting Putin. For example, right-wing and left-wing extremists are united in calling for an end to supporting the Ukrainians' struggle for freedom with weapons. — Jacques

Ah, I see. Much the same way as you support racism then?

Ah, I see. Much the same way as you support racism then? — Isaac

Whoa! Everyone's here taking friendly potshots at one another, soft jabs to the midsection and you come in with a spiked bat to the face! What is up with that my man?

Those are fightin' words and legal slander because even if anybody in earshot couldn't care less, it can still get the man killed later down the road.

I grant you, you should always call a spade a spade. Kettle me black. But where are you getting this information from? Surely a moderator not remiss would have dealt with such long ago.

Well, it's just that my preferred way of opposing racism is the sort of radical socialism @Jacques disagrees with. Since we're deciding that anyone who doesn't agree with our preferred methods of opposing anything must be indirectly supporting it, the only conclusion I'm left with is that @Jacques must be supporting racism, since they disagree with my preferred method of opposing it.

Or... we could agree that it's puerile to just simplify a very complex issue into "anyone who isn't frantically chucking guns at the problem is basically a war criminal", and that there are a range of solutions which different people support from different perspectives, not all of which are militaristic.

Everyone's here taking friendly potshots at one another, soft jabs to the midsection — Outlander

@Jacques accused me and pretty much my entire social group of supporting a ruthless war criminal responsible for the massacre at Bucha. Can you explain in what way that's a "friendly potshot"?

Ah, I see. Much the same way as you support racism then? — Isaac

Hmm Tu quoque?

Jacques accused me and pretty much my entire social group of supporting a ruthless war criminal responsible for the massacre at Bucha. Can you explain in what way that's a "friendly potshot"? — Isaac

Okay, see I missed that. You have the blood of what you perceive to be innocents fueling your dogma. I understand that. And apologize. We could talk endlessly about such topics but in the interest of remaining on the intended subject focus of the poster, I digress. Perhaps, it was even the interlocutor who derailed and, perhaps I don't know, baited you. Either way.

Let's use this alleged massacre as a stepping stone back to the original topic. "The State" or those employed by it killed citizens. You're saying they were innocent, non-treasonous, and unarmed. This can happen regardless of any economic model a given society operates under. So where do we go from here? It is an association (possibly an indirect one) that communism removes an individual of personal responsibility and ownership of property, seeing as such property must be maintained and used responsibly or else penalties and negative outcomes, be they enforced by men or happen organically will occur (example, if you own a machine gun to defend your farm and family from riots, some unhinged and suicidal person could steal it and enter a mall with the intent to kill as many as possible). Correct?

That's an extreme example of course. Let's use the shell game metaphor. Say the item under the shell is the innocent man and, per example, the player is an immoral man who wishes to do harm. The favored and popular argument seems to be, under communism, you have one shell. You compromise that, all under it are subject to your malevolence. If you have multiple, hence the idea of goods and services being privately owned, you get what you compromised, perhaps, though the idea is you really didn't or at least your malevolence was isolated and contained later to be neutralized by others, yet others have a chance. How do you respond to that?

Edit: That is to say, one man - unscrupulous in nature - could occupy the sole position of government and all duty bound to it, and cause it to be used for what is socially deemed negative, controlling, or destructive. Now all goods and services are subject to this maligned pursuit. But if you have freedom of ability to produce or not produce what you want when you want, it now requires greater effort and coordination to ensure the average citizen is now subject to said pursuit. Make sense? That's the argument at least.

Tu quoque? — jorndoe

That was the idea, yes.

one man - unscrupulous in nature - could occupy the sole position of government and all duty bound to it, and cause it to be used for what is socially deemed negative, controlling, or destructive. Now all goods and services are subject to this maligned pursuit. But if you have freedom of ability to produce or not produce what you want when you want, it now requires greater effort and coordination to ensure the average citizen is now subject to said pursuit. Make sense? That's the argument at least. — Outlander

Makes sense, but as I've been discussing above, there's more than one way to restrict freedom and government-type actions aren't even top of the list. This "freedom of ability to produce or not produce what you want when you want" is easily constrained by total monopoly over the means of production. Which is what you get in a capitalist state.

PeoplePeople, please keep the off-topic mudslinging elsewhere.

The INBOX for example, or set up a "Flamery" thread in The Lounge or something for more readers. (Could be used as a bin for out-moderated posts as well I guess, as long as it doesn't show up in the front/main feed.)

I don't think this stuff encourages newcomers or random visitors either.

Of course it is. — Outlander

As of typing, the votes are about fifty-fifty, so I'm wondering about the certainty you express.

(Please keep in mind, it's not so much about "possible" (technically), as it's about "realistic/feasible"; maybe the opening post wasn't clear enough, my bad if so.)

I'm guessing some sort of sweeping changes would be needed, perhaps cultural/ethical, but that's just conjecture on my part.

Makes sense, but as I've been discussing above, there's more than one way to restrict freedom and government-type actions aren't even top of the list. — Isaac

Please produce this list for us, in your own words.

This "freedom of ability to produce or not produce what you want when you want" is easily constrained by total monopoly over the means of production. Which is what you get in a capitalist state. — Isaac

"Total" is where I would question your sentiments. People die. Spoiled kids make poor choices. Things grow anew. Is this not so? Sure, wealthy families often remain wealthy and can often avoid legal actions or repercussions the average citizen cannot. Potential competitors can be neutralized through a variety of means both legal and extrajudicial. See it all the time. However the difference is one can get "caught" and social outrage justified whereas in state-controlled production one who criticizes is metaphorically "in bed with the enemy" and against the well being and future of the children ie. a traitor. At least, that's the principle argument put forth.

As well as if my sole household provider dies of a food allergy from a negligent menu omitting ingredients, I can't do or get anything from a dude on the side of the road selling seafood. What do I get his cart? Some minute three figure amount from his savings? Gee, that's nice. Whereas if I'm eating at a large corporate chain you better believe I'll be living the rest of my life waking up when I please not knowing if it's 7 AM or PM and loving it. Slippery slope. At least, that's the argument.

Please produce this list for us, in your own words. — Outlander

I have already done so in the discussion above, but broadly it is through the appropriation of the means of production in the hands of groups of individuals whose united objectives cause them to act as a monopoly.

If the system is set up such that the winning strategy for, say factory owners, is to support some employment strategy, then they will all do so (those that don't will lose - it's the 'winning' strategy). Considering that they will all do so, and they own the factories, a stakeholder in those factories has no means to alter course, the preferred strategy of the owners will be the one under which they have to work.

Same goes for every single other resource. the group that own that resource get to dictate how it is used and other stakeholders have to just lump it.

A communist system is, in essence, saying that it is stakeholders, not owners who should dictate how a resource is used.

the difference is one can get "caught" and social outrage justified whereas in state-controlled production one who criticizes is metaphorically "in bed with the enemy" and against the well being and future of the children ie. a traitor. — Outlander

This is, again, no less the case in a capitalist system. Powerful interests only need to monopolise the media (one the 'resources' I mentioned above), and it is they, not the stakeholders (readers in this case) who get to dictate how that resource is used. It's not hard to create social movements by manipulating media outputs, possibly even easier than government's trying to do it.

if I'm eating at a large corporate chain you better believe I'll be living the rest of my life waking up when I please not knowing if it's 7 AM or PM and loving it. — Outlander

The evidence does not support this. Big businesses have big legal teams and most attacks on them fail. They might pay out, but it is inevitably less than the profit they make. so they continue to harm people, and pay less than they make in compensation. That's not a world I want to live in.

PeoplePeople, please keep the off-topic mudslinging elsewhere. — jorndoe

You mean like...

For some reason, it seems that some (Western) communists and socialists have become apologists for Russia. — jorndoe

...?

If you don't like it, perhaps refrain form doing it, at least in your own threads, or maybe just try dialling down the sanctimony.

, nope, not like that. Like "off-topic mudslinging" where two (or more) posters sling mud at each other in a thread.
You thought the tankie comment was about you...? Wasn't even particularly about the forum.
(Hmm What "sanctimony"? What did I just write again...?)

broadly it is through the appropriation of the means of production in the hands of groups of individuals whose united objectives cause them to act as a monopoly. — Isaac

So basically "damned if you do, damned if you don't" seeing as both are present in each system. We're not progressing here, at least from that generalization.

A communist system is, in essence, saying that it is stakeholders, not owners who should dictate how a resource is used. — Isaac

What is a stakeholder? Any citizen? Which includes some pothead college dropout with no understanding of the world who after reading the outlines of economics thinks he's suddenly Adam Smith? Gee, what could go wrong there.

Good intentions pave the road to hell, it is said. Perhaps rightfully so, perhaps not. We live in a world of free, unrestrained thinking and upbringing. You got religious types who think the world is basically dead or going to be destroyed, you got people who are too nice, and much more who are too cruel, and you got those who are anarchistic and in their words "just want to watch the world burn". Now seriously in all judgement, is that the demographic you would have in charge over goods and services over those raised from birth to study and perform efficiently in economics? One would hope not.

At the end of the day the average person is a "go getter", a "risk taker". People barely think about where or what they'll be doing in 15 minutes let alone 15 years. And that's the point of civilized society. So the average person doesn't have to think about war, death, famine, slavery, abuse 24/7 and pursue their own personal desires, be they beneficial to others and society or not. That's literally the definition of freedom. It's a recipe for disaster, plain and simple.

It's not hard to create social movements by manipulating media outputs, possibly even easier than government's trying to do it. — Isaac

This I would agree with. Difference is sometimes you need to break a few eggs to make an omelette. Meaning, sometimes a little rain must fall in order to prevent a drought. Short term inconvenience is always worth it to prevent long term fatalities, neither of which the average person does or is expected to understand. As Star Wars puts it "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Interestingly enough, in a broader sense absent of time, it's speaking about future generations, not whatever majority may be present at the time of speaking. Some "psychology" is good. This is leadership. "A leader is a dealer in hope". Some of it is bad. This is propaganda. Everybody thinks they're way of life (a normal function of the brain, what worked before will work again) is right. Until it's not. But by then it's often far too late.

They might pay out, but it is inevitably less than the profit they make. so they continue to harm people, and pay less than they make in compensation. — Isaac

Okay then that's justice. Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be? You can't pay out more than you have now can you? Believe me, people will harm other people plenty enough especially without laws, order, and strict governance. The devil is in the mirror. Metaphorically, I mean. Nothing personal. You seem cool.

To summarize: the average reasonable person will want as much as possible with as little as possible as quickly as possible. there's nothing wrong with this. it's efficiency. how the brain works and how we managed to survive and come so far. however, there is much more to consider than instant gains to avoid bleeding an economy dry to the point of non-sustainability. ignorance may be bliss, and myopia, it's own heaven. but it never lasts long.

I'm guessing some sort of sweeping changes would be needed, perhaps cultural/ethical, but that's just conjecture on my part. — jorndoe

I am sympathetic to communism, but I think we're too selfish right now, and that the limits of human organization are unknown. That we're too selfish, though, isn't a surprise given what behavior is rewarded -- and I should say we're collectively too selfish. I should say by selfish I don't mean individual selfishness, but more like a clannish selfishness -- we care for ours first, just behaviorally, because that's our responsibility and no one else will. Our society is set up in such a way that you kind of have to put you and yours first. Selfishness is a necessity for family life, and family life is usually the concrete place where people encounter the economy: through a paycheck and the power which comes from that paycheck and how the economy effects whoever earns that paycheck is where most people have contact with the economy's rules. The other time is as the buyer of goods.

I don't know about "sweeping" changes. In a way since how we live together is ultimately up to us it's us that would have to change. But it couldn't be a spiritual change for it to count as political, it'd have to be a material change -- a change in the way we relate to the economy. Given that the limits of human organization are unknown, though, we don't know how much would need to change to get there. Beyond a dream we don't even know what "there" is. If you ask me I tend to believe there is no end of history, really. People will always have issues to work through -- but that's not a bad thing. The bad thing is how we work through issues, now, and its results. A realistic communism would have to have a process by which human issues could be worked through, because we'll never reach a society where conflict just doesn't exist at all. It'd just be better than, say, recruiting soldiers through the usual means of propaganda to maintain border claims to ensure stability within a physical geographic region.

Further, while dreams and thoughts have their place, we need others for any material change. So it all kind of goes back to building relationships with people -- the limits of what's socially possible depend upon all of us. As such communisms realism and feasibility are more like social facts that could change in light of how we decide to behave, given that our personalities nor our cultures are static entities.

It doesn’t help that most of the tenets were pure wind. Class consciousness, class struggle, historicism, dictatorship of the proletariat, the withering of the state, the labor theory of value…all of it was snake oil sold to a weary public, who mostly had little choice in the matter anyways. Had Marx argued the phrase “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” as a normative principle rather than some teleological end-game, we might be well into communist living right now. But the normative principles were revolution and violence, leading to murder and theft and oppression on a mass scale.

Communism was a kind of ideological colonialism that has lad some countries, like China or Russia, to sever its own history and adopt a European myth in its place. If it had tried to be normative rather than scientific, had led by example rather than violence, it might have become a sort of religion, like the Amish, where it’s adherents are looked upon fondly as they go around working together and sharing the fruits of their labor.